Note: This is a seattlepi.com reader blog. It is not written or edited by the P-I. The authors are solely responsible for content. E-mail us at newmedia@seattlepi.com if you consider a post inappropriate.

SR-520: Show us the money

You’ve heard a lot from me about the planned SR-520 rebuild. But one question I’ve not yet asked: where’s the money?

Ask an expert
For the answer, I went to an expert on money matters. Ted Lane is an economist, a Ph.D., past president of the Western Regional Science Association (WRSA), Trustee of the Pacific Regional Science Coordinating Organization (PRSCO) and principle in the Seattle based economic and public policy consulting group Thomas/Lane & Associates (TLA).

Ted’s conclusion: the state’s 520 plan is “either fiscally naive or financially irresponsible.” Here, in his own words, are the reasons why–and what we can do about it.

Not enough
For this $4.65 billon project, the state department of transportation has about $0.3 billion available. That leaves us more than $4.3 billion short.

Revenue from bonds backed by 520 tolls is expected to generate only an additional $1.0 billion.

Now what?
Where do we expect to get the rest?

From bond revenues ($0.6 billion) backed by existing gas taxes, which will leave us no gas tax money for roads elsewhere in Washington for the next 20 years, unless we increase current taxes.

From an interest free loan ($0.3 billion) out of the state’s General Fund, that otherwise would be available to help close Washington’s budget deficit.

From revenues backed by I-90 tolls ($1.2 billion). About 30 years worth of I-90 tolls will have to go toward paying for 520. Improvements on I-90 to support freight mobility and economic development will be delayed for decades.

From bonds backed by future federal funds ($0.7 billion), which the state assumes will be available. With what’s going on in D.C. now, this is an heroic assumption, with no “Plan B” if federal funds are not available.

And finally, from new (unspecified) taxes to raise another $0.6 billion, probably requiring King County to establish a “Transportation Benefit District” and increase either property or retail sales taxes.

How about a rational approach?
In other words, the state’s financing plan makes no sense.

The 520 problem that requires immediate attention is public safety. Tolls on 520 will raise enough money to address the safety problem, and that’s how they should be spent.

Note: This is a seattlepi.com reader blog. It is not written or edited by the P-I. The authors are solely responsible for content. E-mail us at newmedia@seattlepi.com if you consider a post inappropriate.